Tailoring the code

Thursday

May 16, 2013 at 12:01 AM

True, outrageous and unconventional attire can be a distraction. But the code swung the pendulum too far the other way, its micromanagement creating a different set of distractions when a general approach would be sufficient.

By loosening the rules on untucked shirts, the Bay County School Board on Tuesday took to heart the first sentence in the district’s student dress code: “Appropriate dress is the primary responsibility of the student and his/her parent or guardian.”

In a 3-2 vote, the board adopted the recommendation of Superintendent Bill Husfelt to no longer make it mandatory for students in grades 6-12 to tuck in their shirts. Chairman Jerry Register said the tuck rule drew more attention from parents than any other issue brought before the School Board this school year. If that’s true, then way too much attention has been paid to something that is not central to the district’s primary mission of educating children. Indeed, it may even have distracted from it.

The dress code raised hackles when it was implemented in 2006, with many students and parents complaining about overly fussy attention being paid to the number of buttons on polo shirts, belts and other accoutrements. That put teachers and administrators in the position of having to enforce the rules, creating conflicts with students and parents. Time was spent arguing over whether something was a violation and requiring the student to change into compliant clothes, which detracted from instruction.

True, outrageous and unconventional attire can be a distraction. But the code swung the pendulum too far the other way, its micromanagement creating a different set of distractions when a general approach would be sufficient.

Over time, the School Board revised the code and relaxed some standards, such as the number of buttons on a polo. It still prohibits flip-flops, tank tops, miniskirts and “baggy pants” for mostly aesthetic reasons, and limits the number of pockets for safety concerns.

Tuesday, the code evolved once more, allowing students to wear shirts that are untucked but “appropriately fitted” — but not without opposition. Board Member Joe Wayne Walker believed untucked shirts can be used to conceal weapons (perhaps he’s seen this video). It would be interesting to compare the district’s school violence statistics before and after the tuck rule was implemented. Did it cut down on weapons smuggled on to campus? Or is that more of a hypothetical threat?

Member Steve Moss thought it was an issue of discipline and decorum. Untucked shirts indicate a lack of self-respect, he said, and forcing students to tuck in their shirts also will better prepare them for the working world.

Many parents likely would agree. The question is whether the schools should be doing the parents’ job. If parents instill those values in their children, they shouldn’t need a dress code to maintain them. If they don’t, is it the schools’ responsibility to step in and add to their already crowded plate of instructional mandates?

The truth is, the dress code isn’t uniformly enforced around the district anyway. The board bowed to practical and parental reasons, with Husfelt relaying his daughters’ history of struggling to keep shirts properly tucked in because of their “body build.”

Give the new policy a chance to work. If it is abused, it can be revisited.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.